Poor Diane Sawyer – recently kicked upstairs by ABC News, she started off her Wednesday report on the Israeli assault on Gaza by giving us the Bizarro World version of the latest news. In a conflict where as of this moment 86 Palestinians have been killed – nearly all civilians, mostly women and children – and as many as 1,000 wounded, with exactly zero casualties in Israel, Sawyer directed our attention to "the rockets raining down on Israel" – while on the screen we saw Israeli jets pounding Gaza. Pointing to a still photo clearly of Palestinians dragging a mattress through the rubble, she described it as "an Israeli family trying to salvage what they can."

In Bizarro World – where up is down, black is white, and truth is falsehood – this makes perfect sense. And it kind of does in our world, too, on at least two levels.

ABC later acknowledged the "error," but one wonders: a lie, once in circulation and widely accepted, is hard to refute, no matter how many "corrections" are issued. Lots of people still think Saddam Hussein organized the 9/11 attacks, and they don’t all work at the Weekly Standard. War propaganda, which is largely dependent on visual images larded with shock value, is not especially subtle. The idea is to bypass the rational mind and appeal directly to the target’s emotions.

On another level, as Peter Hart over at FAIR put it, "ABC’s error should be seen less as a simple mistake, and more as a reflection of a worldview." It’s an intriguing idea – intriguing because we aren’t told exactly what worldview. Or whose worldview. Hart vaguely describes this unidentified bias as being a sin of "the corporate media," but what does this really mean? All media is "corporate" in the sense that it consists of groups of people working to bring you the news and somehow making money at it – or, in our case, as in the case of all non-neocon nonprofits, generating some income albeit barely breaking even. So what does being "corporate" – assuming this means "for profit" – have to do with being unabashedly pro-Israel?

It isn’t just the "corporate" media that’s part of the hasbara echo chamber: as Max Blumenthal points out, former Israeli prison guard Jeffrey Goldberg has been the only guest to address the current conflict on the Charlie Rose Show – Public Television’s toniest talkfest.

So if it’s not a capitalist conspiracy, then what accounts for the all-pervasive pro-Israeli bias of the American media, which starts out every account of events on the ground with images of Israeli victimhood, downplaying or outright ignoring the suffering of the Palestinians, which is a hundred times greater? And how do we explain Sawyer’s "error" in this context?

The Zionist project is a settler colony: that is, a foreign invasion, in this case one launched not by another nation-state but by a movement that was international in scope from the very beginning.

Starting out as a tiny minority within the Jewish communities of many nations,
the Zionist organizations gradually became dominant through sheer hard work:
endless proselytizing, fundraising, and organizing on a global scale. Their
task was twofold: first, to convince their own people it was necessary to establish
a state in Palestine, and secondly to enlist the help of the political classes
of Europe – and not just the West. In the beginning, the Soviet bloc was the
biggest ally of the nascent Jewish state. Andrei Gromyko rose to defend them
in the United Nations, and the Zionist militias got much of their weaponry from
Soviet bloc countries.

This changed when Uncle Joe Stalin decided that Zionism, rather than being a legitimate "national liberation" movement, was in reality a plot against the Soviet Union. The problem was that the initially pro-Zionist stance of Communist parties around the world, including those in power, had encouraged so many Jews to emigrate to Palestine that the socialist countries were experiencing a brain drain and paying a high economic price. Communist officials were startled to discover that so many people wanted out of their "workers’ paradise." It was time to change the party line – by 180 degrees.

Stalin ordered a series of show trials of top Communist party officials, including the head of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, which "exposed" a "Trotskyite-bourgeois nationalist-Titoist-Zionist" conspiracy to seize power in Soviet bloc countries. The majority of the defendants were of Jewish origin. The explicitly anti-Semitic rhetoric coming out of these theatrical productions reached a Hitlerian crescendo with the infamous "Doctor’s Plot," in which Jewish defendants were portrayed in terms right out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Ironically, this played into the hands of the Zionists, who already had their state – thanks, in large part, to weapons sales from the Soviet bloc arsenal – and who now had to convince Jews worldwide to emigrate to Israel. The anti-Semitic campaign of Stalin’s later years did much to make the Zionists’ case for them, underscoring the alleged need Jews had for a sanctuary, i.e. a state of their own.

The Soviet turnaround also forced them to turn their attention to a much wealthier and more powerful potential ally – the political elites of the West. The British-initiated Balfour Declaration prefigured a relationship with the Western powers that can only be characterized as symbiotic – an increasingly intimate "special relationship" that only got more special with the onset of the cold war. Faced with the Soviet-backed regimes of the Arab states on every side, the Israelis became a US outpost, supported economically by the Diaspora and militarily by the US and its allies.

But it wasn’t an easy road for them to take: it wasn’t their first choice, in any event, but they had to make do. The ambivalence was mutual, after all: back then, Zionism was still a liberal cause, due in part to the dominance of the Labor Zionist movement in Israel and in the Zionist organizations internationally. The Eisenhower administration tried to be evenhanded in the ongoing conflicts between Israel and its neighbors, and openly supported the Arabs in several cases. And conservative Republicans of that era, as I pointed out at the first National Conference to Reassess the US-Israel "Special Relationship," were inclined to be pro-Palestinian.

As a settler colony, the Israeli state has always been dependent on life support from abroad, which means it must direct its resources in that direction. When the Soviets turned on Tel Aviv and sided with the Arabs, the Israeli turned their sights westward – with a vengeance.

The enormous influence of Israel’s lobby in the US is hardly a secret – nor is it evidence of a conspiracy. There is nothing secret about it: the lobby openly seeks to influence the political class in Israel’s favor, and routinely intervenes in cases where the media is insufficiently sensitive to Israeli concerns. The resources at its disposal are substantial: majordonors to the two political parties make no secret of the fact that a candidate’s stance on Israel is the standard by which all are to be judged. A whole network of interrelated pro-Israel organizations acts with some degree of coordination to advance Israel’s agenda in the corridors of power. Government, the media, and the general population are all targeted by specialized units, and their links to the Israeli intelligence apparatus are all too apparent. This is how a settler colony survives.

Yet this method of survival can work only for so long. The patron and the patronized soon tire of each other’s constant demands, and as the latter becomes more independent and aware of its own destiny a conflict of interests emerges. The US relationship with Israel has been under considerable strain over a number of issues, and this has little to do with the current administration in Washington: the same conflicts would’ve arisen if a Republican were in the White House. Indeed, these tensions became all too visible in the latter days of George W. Bush’s second term.

The growing US-Israeli conflict, which would’ve been kept under wraps not so long ago, augurs a new phase in the development of the Zionist project: a clean break from past policies determined by Israel’s dependence on outside assistance and the assertion of a Greater Israel – not only geographically but psychologically as well.

Indeed, this scenario was presented in great detail in a report issued by a 1998 study group headed by Richard Perle in collaboration with a group of neoconservatives, entitled: "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for the Realm." The assembled neocons reported to then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that it was necessary to 1) break free of dependence on the US, and 2) that this would only be possible if Israel succeeded in neutralizing or even eliminating neighboring enemies and aspired to become the dominant regional power in its own right.

The US invasion of Iraq – and the breakup of Syria – largely accomplished this initial task, and the displays of military might occasioned by the present conflict demonstrate, in action, Israel’s growing willingness to defy Washington. Indeed, with the US withdrawal from Iraq, the pending withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the general unwillingness of the US to intervene in the region, Israel is clearly displacing the US as the regional hegemon.

This has been the goal all along. In the end, the myth of the "special
relationship" has been upended by the reality that all nation-states are
inherently rivalrous, just as all criminal gangs are ultimately competing against
each other for territory and loot. During the cold war, US-Israeli rivalry was
muted by the demands of the anti-Soviet alliance. Yet tensions persisted and
sometimes rose to the surface – like when their extensive espionage operations
against the US were revealed, e.g. the Jonathan Pollard case.

As Israel grew stronger, and the rivalry could no longer be completely suppressed, the survival mechanisms of a settler colony – propaganda, influence-buying, and what can fairly be called political espionage – came in handy. As Israeli foreign policy has gotten more aggressive, and its policy toward the Palestinians ever harsher, they have had to call in all their chits and deploy all their resources in order to maintain the myth of Israeli victimhood at the hands of the Arabs.

Yet there comes a point when the myth and the reality are so dissonant that the result is what happened with Diane Sawyer’s "error": as Israeli jets rained death on Gaza, the Sawyerian mind transmuted the image into its exact opposite, and – presto change-o! – those Palestinians dragging a mattress across the rubble became Israelis.

Even as a nuclear-armed Israeli Sparta arises from the ashes of a war-torn region, the only intact state with the military power to take on anyone in the neighborhood– including the United States – the illusion of Israeli victimhood must be maintained for propaganda purposes.

Yet it won’t be necessary for long: phase two of the Zionist project is fast coalescing into the Greater Israel of Theodore Herzl’s dream – a militarized ethno-theocracy with an aggressively expansionist foreign policy agenda – and at this point there is little Washington can or will do about it.

As George W. Bush once put it: "Mission accomplished!"

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here.
But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often
made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

"It isn’t just the 'corporate' media that’s part of the hasbara echo chamber"

—-

Well Raimando…'we' certainly agree on this specific point. As 'we' both know, it isn't just the lame-stream that's shilling for the criminal Israeli Regime….

What does Randy have to say about all of this????

And I quote:

—

"I think it is clear by now: Israel has shown remarkable restraint. It possesses a military with clear superiority over that of its Palestinian neighbors, yet it does not respond to threat after threat, provocation after provocation, with the type of force that would decisively end their conflict.

But sometimes restraint can work against you. Sometimes you just have to say, enough is enough."

Sawyer is just going through the motion, missiles are raining down on Israel, so it must be the Israeli who is suffering as a result of Hamas bombing. The mainstream media tunnel vision is overwhelming.

sheer economics mean that Israel's hegemony is that of a client state in the context of "intense competition" in a politically volatile part of the world where many others are also client states, and more generally, in the entire interdependent world of competitive national affairs while nationalism, to varying degrees, still is able to continue (as an expression of economic wherewithal, etc.). what cards states are dealt is the opening of a game at the international table, with many enuff rounds of play, and new games to play, time after time. in such a context, what "observers" have to say matters to many players, and what Raimondo has said in this effort (7 July 14) cannot always easily be discounted much more than by certain elite players themselves, in their own games, if not by many others, and of course, while much…that gets said is selectively touted by world powers anyway.

i'll assert that sawyer's "gaffe" was no accident. these are the types of lies and blatant misinformation the zionist controlled msm live on. a quick "oops, we're sorry" retraction does nothing in the face of the glaring fabrication of reality. the typical clueless american stooge never gets the retraction..just the propaganda. diane has been a whore and a schill since her days writing speeches for nixon. there isn't enough botox or retractions to give this lying, wrinkled harpy a shred of credibility. as for abc…who's watching that other than the prototypical american rube?

USA needs jewish Israelis as victims, That legitimizes anything the 2 nobles then does, or tries to do.. Since these two wonderful social creatures are morally superior to everything, anywhere, compared to anyone. So those two mad virtual reality builders MUST prevail.

They need enemies to keep their false world in virtual existence.. They need a population of lie swallowers, and their greatest threat is reality itself. They destroy any meaning of life in the process, so maybe we should celebrate the danger of nuclear extinction of life on earth.

Since Paul began his grand betrayal of Principle for the sake of Position, he has had the look of a deer in the headlights…Alex Jones speculated months ago that he was perhaps being blackmailed…we saw this in the case of 'Worthless Woodrow,' who, blackmailed for his indiscretions, helped destroy Western Civilization for the sake of the Zio-National Socialists…Do the sons and heirs of the bankers who had the love letters of Wilson, have the career ending JPEGS of Lil' Ran' with the proverbial 'live boy or dead woman?'

Sawyer is just the arse-puppet…the hand up her skirt belongs to the Zionists…the money that pays them both comes from the Zionist-run corporation…the Zionist-run corporation is kept above water with the advertising revenues of other Zionist War Street firms dedicated to the New World Order.

The best English-speaking news and/or news providers are RT, Infowars and 'Whatreallyhappened'… I'm sure there are other good ones–like antiwar.com, dedicated to peace–but, the three I listed have the integrity (despite other failings), at least, to maintain that '9-11 was an Inside Job'…the MSM does not…The MSM took the Regime line on Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran and Syria…supporting the 'War of Terror on the World'…supporting the murder of those who murder children in Gaza and the West Bank…

Yesterday, on a TV in a waiting room, I noticed that CNN was giving Lil' Ran' Paul a whole lot of face time…They just don't do that for someone who isn't willing to 'kiss the goat's arse' and support Death and Empire…and, Lil' Ran' must have been all pumped up and excited about it…like the Recruiter in 'Alice's Restaurant.' I couldn't hear what he was saying…which, is a good thing…I'm sure Nathan the Yahoo enjoyed a vicarious rim job from this Senator of the United States…

Justin,
You nailed it – the MSM coverage of this "turkey shoot" is total bullcrap. The causation – tribalism, and the need to keep Joe Sixpack always thinking of Israel as the Israel of their boyhood Sunday School lessons – simple, God-fearing, shepherds wearing robes and sandals, and holding a lamb around their necks. Never mind the truth that they are becoming ultra cruel, materialistic, people so self-oriented that they consider genocide as acceptable (as long as it is Arabs being killed).

ok, so socialists at times and places fail socialism. and anti-socialists seldom if ever attack any of its proposals, but always attack socialists.
democrats just about everywhere fail democracy and its aims, but antisocialists don't attack democracy.
they do attack governments but not the system of governance or democracy without which there would not be governments.
US had been founded on an ideology; without which it would not have 900 bases or wage so many wars, but anti-socialists keep avoiding disclosing to people what this ideology consist of.

it seems to me that we learn ONLY or MOSTLY via our god- or nature-given five senses.
presumably, ABC knows that instinctively or intellectually.
so, give the learners as much 'information' thru the eye as possible.
language appears mostly auxhilliary; provided it is never used in order to mislead.

why did ONLY the white race want to set up an artificial state initially for whites only?
i've been asking this question for at least 30 years.
stalin and churchill approved of the project. stalin probably thought that zionists would choose a socialist or communist ideology to run on the new state.
and what about churchill? did he see zionists differently? i think he did, he saw, i think, they would be discriminatory, much anti-sociaiistic, anti-arabic and thus much more useful to the 'free' world and christianity.
be it as it may, western world had not ever, as far as i know, ever laid their cards on the table why set up an artificial state that would make eternal enemies for itself?

Diane Sawyer cannot be that stupid. Nor can she be a journalist in the traditional sense of the word. I think that what she realizes about herself is that her job is to shape world opinion, which does exist, contrary to what the Israeli UN ambassador said during the 6-Day War. Unfortunately, the world opinion beast is a slippery one. So perhaps a more modest ambition would be to set the American couch potatoes on the side of Israel in the conflict, much like anesthetizing a dental patient, and then the Congress will perform the extraction of American wallets to pay for this stuff.

and, then, after eons of socialism, came aristocracy; wars and ever larger wars; slavery, serfdom…
and after millennia of that came democracy; big wars [with more children being killed than ever before], bigger fears than ever.
utter obedience, serfdom remained.
and some want to repair it????
yes, possibly, they can– and yes, probably, they cannot!

ABC is the worst of the zionist controlled media. Not just when it comes to Palestine but in all other issues as well. If you watch any of their shows, since their acquisition by Disney, they've represented nothing but vile political agendas, like (reverse) racism, (reverse) sexism, destruction of the middle class, mockery of all religions (with one exception), and so on.

Unfortunately, I don't see the US tiring of being run by israel any time soon. And how about the rest of the world? Wasn't there a candid conversation about bibi by Merkel and Sarkoshlitz? Leaders of the world let themselves be bossed around by these people, for exactly what reason?

[…] Poor Diane Sawyer – recently kicked upstairs by ABC News, she started off her Wednesday report on the Israeli assault on Gaza by giving us the Bizarro World version of the latest news. In a conflict where as of this moment 86 Palestinians have been killed – nearly all civilians, mostly women and children – and as many as 1,000 wounded, with exactly zero casualties in Israel, Sawyer directed our attention to “the rockets raining down on Israel” – while on the screen we saw Israeli jets pounding Gaza. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/07/10/pro-israel-media-bias-its-as-easy-as-abc/#.U7_mbhDRPeY&#8230; […]

I watched as much of the lamestream news-media as I could yesterday. Pro-Israel bias was EVERYWHERE. That is not surprising when you consider the differing levels of influence and control the two respective ethnic groups have in the corporate news-media in this country.

Yes, this ABC "mistake" is a glaring example of the scarcely hidden propaganda of major media unfailing in it's support of the Israeli state.
Also unremarked upon is how much Israel is like to its Arab neighbors. Like its Arab neighbors (though absent any "king") Israel is a fake pseudo democracy where political participation is carefully regulated to exclude any group which might pose a threat to the current order. So non Jewish groups are basically excluded from politics. And from land owning, and access to public institutions. The true source of power is the military (hence all US media reports in times of crisis there cite Israeli military radio). The military or ex generals control much of the economy or own businesses outright. This quasi fascist-militarist set up is standard in the Arab world but is never remarked upon re: Israel. Israeli's "democracy" hardly differs in substance from that in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc. which are widely reported as quasi military dictatorships.

Unlike its Arab neighbors, the Israeli military is held up in America as some kind of bulwark of "democracy" there, not proof of military not-so-hidden hand rule. Israeli exceptionalism at work.

Context: The arrows! The flaming arrows! If only the wild savage Indians would stop shooting the arrows at our peaceful settlers, we wouldn't have to send in the cavalry with the field artillery and gatling guns! Look at what they're forcing us to do! We would NEVER force them onto the least desirable lan d, with no water, arable land, or other desirable resources if it wasn't for the flaming arrows!

As Justin said: "a settler colony: that is, a foreign invasion, in this case one launched not by another nation-state but by a movement that was international in scope from the very beginning."

Gaza, Wounded Knee, what's the difference except 125 years? The story told remains the same, as does the genocidal outcome.

When goodwill towards Israel diminishes, it remains to be seen what kind of harsh treatments Jews living elsewhere will be forced to endure. I rather doubt that every one of them making aliya is what the ones in Israel would welcome. They might not come with their papers perfectly in order, might have mixed loyalties, and lack the proper hung-ho attitude. Some might even be creeped out by the religious fanatics which eventually, by sheer demographics, might come to dominate the legal system and civil society.

But even if this "clean break" strategy works in other ways, when has it ever happened that people used to entitlements stopping trying to get them? Won't this victim posture continue in order to win hand-outs? I don't notice a let-up in the bias towards seeing the people itself as both more deserving and more suffering than others. It's heresy to suggest otherwise no matter how powerful they are in the Mideast today.

The fact is that American society grew up to what it is today with lots of Jews in the mix, and they are an integral part of this society because of our history of tolerance and constitutional freedoms, while Europe did and does remain very ethnically-minded.

Israel may have been helped over the last hurdles to its creation by Americans, but as Justin pointed out, they had other sponsors in the intense organizing phase. If it had been up solely to Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish, there would not have been an Israel nor would there have been a need for one.

I am going to risk several upticks by stating that my correspondent today in a former Eastern European nation observes that his instinct that Israel is still justified in its creation and worthy of support has only been reinforced by the sense that this country is reverting to blood and soil thinking, including a bid to take back territories lost after WWI. In such an atmosphere, having an actual homeland you can point to somehow makes some people feel better, especially in an atmosphere where some Americans are asserting anti-immigrant sentiments aimed at creating a sense of nationalism again which they feel is fading. Attila and the Witch Doctor are waking from their slumber.

And the irony is, there would never have been a need for Israel or a Holocaust if all European Jews had just been able to emigrate here without restriction.

In earlier days, the settlers had been controlled by three European nations which were constantly at war with each other: Holland, France and England. The various tribes were put up to supporting one or the other, and being supported by them, though due to European victories in remote battles, England became the winner that took all. The most enlightening period is the one between the mid-17 century and the mid-18th century in America, something rarely studied in our history of ourselves, but it was as blood-soaked as the Mideast in some quarters, for its size and population density. Immediately after the Pilgrims landed in 1620, relations were fostered with the local Indian tribes that did credit to both sides, but this was based on personal relationships. Fifty years on, it broke down, even though even before that the Dutch and the English often killed each other as they jockeyed for the territory on Long Island and along the Hudson. They of course used Indians to help them fight. That's the reason of course, the meaning, behind the Boston Tea Party participants dressing as Indians. It had been done before, false flag American style. The latest example of this is the Boston Marathon non-bombings.

Don't be so pessimistic. Before Martin Luther King everbody thought that blacks would live oppressed for at least a couple of generations more. The Israeli hegemon has several weaknesses -in addition to the moral one. Hezbollah showed one of them -the one Israel tried to convince its foes about: its military prowess.

One thing strikes me – the Palestinian rockets are generally short-range, unguided missiles – a few to maybe a dozen kilometers. There are mortar locating weapons systems – e.g, the Hughes Firefinder that very quickly can determine the launch spot. Of course, then the launch spot can be targeted. Yet those systems are surely available to them, the Israelis are apparently not using them. The Iron Dome system is being used to destroy the "flying ashcans" one by one in flight, but why not stop the incoming missiles by destroying the launch sites, rather than worrying about destroying the missiles after launch. It occurs to me that the Israelis don't want to destroy the launch sites for the Palestinian rockets. Why? Because if you, yourself or your hired "terrorists" are doing the actual launching so as to provide an excuse for carpet-bombing Gaza, then you definitely want the rockets to keep coming.
It is like boxing a guy with an 16" reach while you have a 28" reach. You want him to throw punches – he can't hit you while you can punch him silly.

5 short points: 1, "clean break…" , Rabbi Meir Khane said that long before the flub-a-dub neocons showed up. 2, Zion has military superiority, first strike, but not sustainability. The could not do what America did in Iraq. 3, Israel's economy rests on the Dollar, the same as Panama. Those economies fail if the Dollar fails. They hate that idol. It is a source of jealousy. 4, Zionist manipulation of American body politic is the same manipulation taking place world-wide. Israel's enemies are not just those in the Levant. 5, GOD is not the source of evil. HE said, " I will bring evil upon you". HE has brought evil upon us because we have turned from HIM. Zionists are evil.

And the context is: I'm an American. If I can't take ownership of what we did to our indigenous population, I have no room to criticize Israeli attitudes. If you are Mexican or Peruvian, by all means critique Cortez or Pizarro.

Meanwhile, after rah-rahing for brave little Israel surrounded by so many enemies, the gnat-sized attention span of Boobus Americanus has now shifted to the worshipping of LeBron James returning to Cleveland to run around a court and dunk a silly little ball in a net.

the so-called apology by abc, and the comment by fair.org didn't even say the Palestinian family in the still pic were in Gaza, so that left open the possibility it was a Palestinian family in Israel. shame on abc & Fair.

And, as things get really ugly in Palestine and Gaza, let's not fail to point out that Sawyer is married to 'Mike Nichols'…a nice Jewish boy and excellent director of several memorable films…Does anyone really believe his 'shikse' is going to give us anything remotely resembling the facts concerning the American-supported murder of the folks in Gaza?…or, ask why anyone would watch her shill for the Zio-National Socialists?…or, why Americans have to get 'news' from the likes of her or the Israeli agent, Wolfe Blitzer?…ABC gives this creature millions a year to lie and misrepresent…

Not sure what you are arguing. Israel not so bad as Aparteid governments go? For the US they suck our blood and make huge enemies for us. That's sorta unique. But lets go with your point. Fact is empires rise and fall. And over the millenia Israel too will eventually fall. Too strong now to fall in our lifetime. But eventually. That is unless they really do bring about armegeddon the way the pseudochristian zealots hope they will.

[…] of Gaza over either the lack of attention the world is paying to these tragic deaths or the an alleged pro-Israel bias in the media. The former concern cannot be taken seriously during a time when deaths of civilians in Gaza […]

[…] of Gaza over either the lack of attention the world is paying to these tragic deaths or the an alleged pro-Israel bias in the media. The former concern cannot be taken seriously during a time when deaths of civilians in Gaza […]

[…] of Gaza over either the lack of attention the world is paying to these tragic deaths or the an alleged pro-Israel bias in the media. The former concern cannot be taken seriously during a time when deaths of civilians in Gaza […]

[…] of Gaza over either the lack of attention the world is paying to these tragic deaths or the an alleged pro-Israel bias in the media. The former concern cannot be taken seriously during a time when deaths of civilians in Gaza […]

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].